I agree with rewarding players on form but under certain provisors. Firstly the form needs to be consistent and not simple from one game. Secondly the player needs to be part of the long term future of the club or be filling a hole. Tuck certainly covers my first provisor but not the second. Tuck is a tremendous accumulator of contested ball but hasn't the desposal or decision-making skills that are paramount in Dimma's selection criteria. Opposition coaches used to instruct their players to zone off Tuck, cover the other midfielders closely and allow him to turn the ball over. I love Tucky's toughness and ball winning ability but including him would be only a stop gap measure, delay our young midfielders the opportunity to learn how to win their own ball and structure up around stoppages. Additionally him may hinder our chances during games by turning the ball over.
Post should have been included but not at the expense of a ruckman. We saw what happened last week without a ruck and Post was the most expendable of our talls based on last week's performance so was therefore replaced. We have missed White's pace, defensive pressure around the forwardline and with the additional threat of Gold Coasts pacey side, he is a given.
Players such as Morton will need more than one good game at Coburg to fight their way back into the side given our structures and the knock on his denfensive side of his game.
I think the selections make sense to be honest given the players to choose from, match ups and looking towards the future. I still think there are more than a few players who are effectively warming the place of future talent - Browne being the most notable one - but overall I think calls for the coaches head's ect is a little short sighted and premature imho.
